Tag Archives: bisphenol-A

Washington state has done it again, being the first state in the
country to take a legal stand against a toxic chemical.

The Legislature this week voted to phase out cooper in brake
pads, provided there are reasonable alternatives and that research
continues to suggest that brake pads are contributing significant
amounts of toxic copper. The bill is
Senate Bill 6557.

This last point about research — about the need to know more
about the alternate states of copper in the environment — was
raised by Silverdale resident Bob Benze. I covered his questions
and success in adding an amendment to the bill in the
March 1 edition of the Kitsap Sun.

Even at low levels, an ionic form of copper has been shown to
affect the sense of smell in salmon, which can lead to confusion
and reproductive failure. It has become a major concern, especially
in urban areas. Here’s a fact sheet from the Washington Department
of Ecology.

Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of the Washington Toxics Coalition supports
the Puget Sound Partnership’s call for a full assessment of toxic
chemicals flowing into Puget Sound and an increased focus on
eliminating sources of such pollution.

Last week, Ted Sturdevant, director of Ecology,
testified before Congress about actions taken by state
governments, generally because the federal government has been slow
to act. He and 12 other state environmental officials are calling
for reform of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

Washington was the first state to draft a formal policy phasing
out persistent bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs. This led to state
laws phasing out mercury and toxic flame retardants. The latest
legislation, finalized this week, will ban bisphenol-A in baby
bottles and sports bottles.

The Washington State Senate this morning approved an amended
bill banning bisphenol-A (BPA) from “sports bottles” as well as
from baby bottles and sippy cups used by children. See
Senate Bill 6248.

Manufacturers of various kinds of containers were ready to
accept a ban on baby bottles. In fact, major producers — including
Gerber and Playtex — are no longer using BPA in infant products
sold in the United States.

But the amendment (added by the House and approved today by the
Senate) shows that industry representatives were unsuccessful at
drawing a line for BPA in adult products. The argument is that
young children are more vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, because their immune and reproductive systems are still
forming.

Jan Teague, president of the Washington Retail Association, was
quoted in the
Puget Sound Business Journal as saying manufacturers are
“ready” for the state to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, and
other containers used by children, but adult products are another
thing.

“The bill is about children’s safety—not adult sports bottles,”
Teague told reporter Kaitlin Strohschein. “I think we’re going to
be fine on the baby bottles and stuff but not on the sports
bottles.”Continue reading →

Sunoco, a chemical and petroleum manufacturer, has become the
first supplier of bisphenol-A to block sales of the chemical for
use in water and food containers to be used by children under
3.

The safety of BPA continues to be debated, with the credibility
of government regulators — and the method of chemical regulation
itself — a major issue.

Matthew Perrone, a reporter with
The Associated Press, disclosed that Sunoco had adopted the new
BPA policy last November following concerns from investors. The
policy became public Thursday, when a letter was sent to two
investors from Thomas Golembeski, public relations director for
Sunoco.

The policy requires a guarantee that the chemical will not be
used in containers for children under 3. “We will no longer sell
BPA to customers who cannot make this promise,” Golembeski
wrote.

Meanwhile, the six largest manufacturers of baby bottles will
stop selling bottles in the United States containing BPA.

Lindsey Layton, a reporter for
The Washington Post, reported March 6 that the change was
announced after attorneys general in Connecticut, New Jersey and
Delaware asked for the voluntary action.

In another development, the Washington House of Representatives
has approved a bill,
HB 1180, that would ban BPA in food containers used by children
under 3 and in sports bottles. It also directs the Department of
Ecology to assess alternatives. The bill is now in the Washington
Senate.

Meanwhile similar legislation, sponsored by Sen Diane Feinstein
of California, has been submitted to Congress. Among her comments
of submission reported in the Congressional Record (See pages
7086 and
7087):

There is a great deal wrong with the regulatory system in this
country and the way we address dangerous chemicals. Our system is
essentially backwards. Chemicals are added to products before we
know much about them. To be removed from the market, a chemical
must be proven to be exceedingly dangerous.

That means that while we wait for evidence of harm to develop,
our children are using dangerous products, and possibly eating
contaminated food.

I believe it should be the reverse. We should follow the lead of
the European Union, and Canada, and remove chemicals until we know
them to be safe. We should not be waiting for proof of danger,
which too often comes in the form of birth defects, cancer, and
other irreversible health harms.

While we continue to work to change our regulatory system, the
time has come to apply this precautionary principle to BPA. Without
question, there is more scientific work to be done. But we must not
continue to expose our citizens to these risks while we wait to
confirm BPA’s dangers beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has been covering the BPA
story intently, has followed these and other developments in its
series “Chemical
Fallout.”

While experts continue to argue about the quality of research
regarding bisphenol-A, some politicians in Washington state are
ready to leap into action.

Bill have been submitted to both houses of the Legislature, and
a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, as reported by Phuong Le of
The Associated Press.

The debate focuses on the toxicity of this chemical and whether
enough of it leaches out of plastic baby bottles and other
containers to be harmful. Heating, for example, is known to
increase the amount that moves out of the plastic and into the
liquid.

With more than 100 studies out for review, BPA was one of the
most studied chemicals last year, according to
“Living the Science,” which published a list. After all that,
the debate is more intense than ever.

It will be interesting to see how deeply the Legislature digs
into this issue, given other concerns on the agenda. At least 13
states and Congress are considering action to ban BPA for various
uses, but so far nobody has done so.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has concluded that the
chemical is safe, but many scientists have questioned the FDA’s
conclusions.

“The issue of children’s health always takes precedent,” Sen.
Karen Keiser, D-Kent, said in Le’s story. “I’m not confident with
the FDA’s assessment and I always think it’s better to be
safe.”

The story also included the counter-argument by Steve Hentges,
executive director of the American Chemistry Council’s BPA panel:
“It’s one of the best tested chemicals,” he said. “It’s been
evaluated by many government agencies in the world.”

If any of you readers has delved into this issue deeply enough
to offer an opinion, feel free to comment here. It seems to be a
difficult case of balancing the evidence and trying to measure the
risks accurately.

In the wake of a Canadian plan to prohibit bisphenol-A (BPA) in
baby bottles, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says he will
introduce a bill to ban BPA in all children’s products made or sold
in the U.S, according to a story by Ian Austen in yesterday’s
New York Times.

On Friday, the Canadian government announced that it will draft
rules to prohibit the import, sale and advertising of baby bottles
containing BPA. In a news release,
Health Canada cited a government health assessment in its
decision. The announcement said the general public need not be
concerned, but infants may face a special risk. From the news
release:

It was determined that the main sources of exposure for newborns
and infants are through the use of polycarbonate baby bottles when
they are exposed to high temperatures and the migration of
bisphenol A from cans into infant formula.

The scientists concluded in this assessment that bisphenol A
exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that cause
effects; however, due to the uncertainty raised in some studies
relating to the potential effects of low levels of bisphenol A, the
Government of Canada is taking action to enhance the protection of
infants and young children.

The
Edmonton Journal focused on the Canadian government’s decision
to spend $1.7 million over the next three years to further
investigate BPA for its effects on health.

Meanwhile, attorneys general from Connecticut, New Jersey and
Delaware have sent letters to 11 baby-bottle and formula
manufacturers asking them to stop using BPA in their products,
according to a report by writer Larry Smith of the
Association Press.

Overall, researchers remain at odds over the risks of BPA, which
is believed to mimic human hormones. One preliminary study released
last month in the
Journal of the American Medical Association linked higher
exposures of BPA to heart disease and diabetes.

The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has tentatively concluded that BPA is safe,
but the agency is offering tips on how to reduce exposure. BPA is
found in some, but not all, of the plastic containers identified
with a catch-all number “7” in the recycling triangle. Heating or
placing hot liquids into such a container tends to increase the
rate of leaching into the liquid, experts say.

I honestly don’t know how concerned we should be about this. As
a precaution, I have thrown away several reusable water containers
that my wife and I used for hiking. They were hard plastic, colored
and had a “7” on the bottom, so they probably contained BPA. For
previous discussions on this topic, see Watching Our Water Ways for
August 29 and
April 11.

Some topics suitable for discussion in Watching Our Water Ways
are important but a bit overwhelming. Such is the case with the
debate over bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical used in some hard
plastics.

The debate involves how much of this chemical gets into the
human body from various sources and whether the levels create a
health risk that warrants banning the substance.

While hard-core scientists work on the problem and debate the
conflicting studies, I was alerted to a story worth reading just
for the fun of it.
Scientific American carried the article on BPA subtitled:
“Patricia Hunt, who helped to bring the issue to light a decade
ago, is still trying to sort it all out.”

It begins with this:

On the day Patricia Hunt’s career veered into an entirely
different field, her graduate students at Case Western Reserve
University were grumbling, itching to use some exciting new data in
their own experiments, but were told to wait while Hunt (just one
last time) checked on her subjects.

Hunt, a geneticist, was exploring why human reproduction is so
rife with complications… All she needed was to ensure that her
control population, the mice left alone in the study, was normal.
Instead Hunt stumbled on a disturbing result—40 percent had egg
defects.

Hunt shelved hopes of publication and scrutinized every method
and piece of lab equipment used in her experiment. Four months
later she finally fingered a suspect.

It was the janitor. In the laboratory. With the floor
cleaner.

You’ll have to click over to
Scientific American for the rest, including a photo of the
“accidental toxicologist.”